There's been a dicsussion lately if the US should/would attack Iran. Seeing that the country is one of the corners of the Axis of Evil, and freedom needs to spread according to Bush's new inauguration speech, this one might be the next target. What do you think? Will Iran get some ass-kicking or no?
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.

I think after Iraq stabilizes (if ever), then the next logical step for the U.S. would be to strategically position themselves in Iran...then Syria...which would ultimately give them a 'Middle Eastern Beltline' stretching from Afghanistan to Israel.
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."

There's no doubt (from a Western perspective, of course) that the current Iranian regime should be overthrown.

But I don't think the US is "the right guy for the job." Such things work much better when done from he inside; just compare the situation in Iraq, where the dictator was overthrown by external force, to the situation in a country where the people themselves have risen against a despot. Usually, these things are bloody, and go on for years, but we can hope that the Iranian democracy movement will have some better times ahead of them. Violence only breeds violence; it takes much to cool down the blood of an entire population...

So I say no. Don't attack Iran.
____________"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.

Quote:Well, while we're at it, there's this dude at work called Ira that really bugs me. Could we attack him, too?

Bort, it depends...Do you think he may have any Weapons of Mass Destruction? Ah, to hell with all that nonsense...LET'S GET HIM!

p.s. - Just keep one thing in mind...We need to tell everyone that we are doing it for his own good, and so that we can spread freedom and God's will throughout your workplace.
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."

First we should check our intelligence reports to see if Ira has w.m.d.'s. We should only attack him if the reports say he has them. Then we should ignore what the rest of our co-workers think. But before any of that, we should check in with our the shift-supervisor to see if he really was the one who stole the sandwiches we made,(for the company picnic) that were painstakingly packed, organized, and labeled "Company Picnic", that were locked safely away in the in the company sports cooler refridgerator.

This can be a very complex process by which we should all take very seriously. It's a highly scientific method of elimination to which many experts sacrifice their time and money. If it weren't for such dedicated people who selflessly go to such great lengths to protect our interests, then the company would not be nearly as great as it is today.

In conclusion, I think bort should run for president on the premise of spreading democracy to the entire world. We should consider an active role in freeing all those company employees whom were blatantly abused; possibly having had their sandwiches eaten as well. Let the world know that we the employees will not allow such crimes against humanity to go unpunished.
____________Roses Are RedAnd So Am I

Quote:Well, while we're at it, there's this dude at work called Ira that really bugs me. Could we attack him, too?

Ira..you sure thats not your retirement account come to
life?

Seriously, Iran fits all the criteria that were touted as
reasons for attacking Iraq. In fact, Iran meets them
more than Iraq ever did: supports terrorism, atomic
program etc. However, they are much bigger than
Iraq, and the US does not have the resources at this time
for a full scale invasion, so I say no.

More likely it will be a covert war, black operations
and such, if at all.
____________

of course everybody believes there beliefs government
laws etc are right and that the rest of the world need
to convert
____________
Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil, for it bends to my will

What not many people know is that Iran is actually a functioning (for Middle Eastern standards) democracy with regular elections taking place. Its also a country whose moderate movement headed by Khatami deserves much support for the steps towards greater freedom and modernization since his election as president, a support crucial in order not to radicalize the mainstream electorate towards radical Islam.
From here, it’s natural that one asks the question of what right does a foreign country (whose residents don’t know the capital of the country they want to attack) to determine another people’s form of government, when they have a decent chance to do it themselves.
Sure, Iran has its problems with human rights, and I also don’t fancy even a bit a country where religious factions are as influential as there, but that’s “from a Western perspective” as someone concluded in a traditional neo-conservative manner. Its not only a matter of the effectiveness of eventual American invasion, it’s first of all a basic question of rule of law and international justice. Should the Americans dare undertake such an adventure without UN consent (as things stand, no way they’re gonna get support, even from servile Britain), it would be a disaster for international order, even bigger than its precedent with Iraq.

There are currently two arguments circulating why Iran should be attacked as far as know.
The human rights argument is largely far-fetched. Being an Islamic Republic, it’s true that many forms of free expression are limited, but so are in other countries which go under the list of US allies. Islamic laws have always been rigorous with any rhetoric against the religion, as well as with other crimes. Maybe you’ve heard, an Australian teenager faces death penalty for smuggling two kilos of marijuana, but the medias arent interested to sell this story as human rights issue. Could be that so because Indonesia has reformed its legislative system to fit Western needs for a sweatshop heaven?
The second argument is the nuclear program. Déjà vu! I only wonder if people will be so stupid to swallow the same crap again. Nuclear energy is an investment for the future, and who’s the West to halt Iranian development. Even if, lets assume for a moment, Iran is developing nuclear weapons, can anyone find a rational argument why some countries are allowed to have them and develop this technology and others are not? Why is the nuclear club a closed gang isnt hard to guess – maintaining the current balance of power in favor of few countries, but somehow doesn’t sound awfully democratic to me.

____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.

Quote:Why the nuclear club is a closed gang isnt hard to guess – maintaining the current balance of power in favor of few countries somehow doesn’t sound awfully democratic to me.

When you are right, you're right my friend. And in this case you are absolutely 100% right. I could not agree more. This is a very complex matter though. One must look to history in order to begin to understand the current global 'nuclear club', as you put it. This is a good nickname you came up with. Everyone knows America made the first nuclear bomb, Soviet spies bought the secrets from the Rosenbergs, and then China followed suit by 'suspiciously acquiring' the technology from the Soviets. Everyone knows all that. But it was during the cold war that the greatest number of countries began to become nuclear capable. During this time America sold nuclear technology and weapons-grade plutonium/uranium to many different countries. We did this because, as most people know, the Soviet Union began building launch sites within range of the whole European continent. That was the time that the first intercontinental ballistic missiles were being upgraded to become more likely to hit their targets. This was also the time when Kruchev led the arms race by having the first nuclear capable submarine(even though it was very difficult to create and maintain with a high margin for error). During this time America made treaties, cut deals, and even bargained in a very unofficial way to get launch sites close enough to within range of all major Russian cities. The closest was, and still is today, in Turkey. The idea, as everyone already knows, was to give this technology to a country thus effectively deterring a nuclear attack by counter-launch sequencing.

That's how most countries came by their nuclear capabilities but then it stopped when the (now former)Soviet Union began to show signs of economic collapse. Now the question remains: With global resources on a slow and steady decrease, where will the energy come from? I know this ties into another thread but the issue here is whether Iran should be allowed to have weapons-grade plutonium/uranium. Of all the parts required for an atomic bomb, it is the process that refines the plutonium and uranium that most people are unable to reproduce. I shouldn't say this but it's important. My old security clearance is long since been expired. Once the Iranians build a nuclear power plant(as they've been declaring all along) our satellites can no longer penetrate the area for spying. It's kinda like that whole superman thing you know where he can see through everything but lead because it's so dense. Because our government knows this, they are very much in fear of what might transpire within an un-regulatable potential enemy nuclear power plant. We won't be able to see what they're doing so our government is freaking out.

But the problem is that Iran has a large segment of its population who hold democracy deep in their hearts. This segment is more than a third of the entire country. There can be no military invasion. Only the U.N. can handle this situation. I also believe they have the right to persue nuclear fission reactors for alternate power sources.
____________Roses Are RedAnd So Am I

There's been a dicsussion lately if the US should/would attack Iran. Seeing that the country is one of the corners of the Axis of Evil, and freedom needs to spread according to Bush's new inauguration speech, this one might be the next target. What do you think? Will Iran get some ass-kicking or no?

"You see? Violence is not the answer! Except to all of America's problems! "
-Bart Simpson
____________
John says to live above hell.

Uh oh, Hamsi...looks like Operation Irani Freedom is getting ready to begin. I'll look for you in Tehran once I get there.

Rice: NATO Can't Be World's Policeman

Wednesday, February 09, 2005

The Associated Press

BRUSSELS — The expanding NATO alliance can be a bulwark for freedom without playing policeman to the world, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said as she neared the end of a European tour that included visits to both old and newer NATO members.

"How NATO's role will evolve, I think, is still an open question, but we need to be open to new roles that NATO might play," Rice said Tuesday in Paris.

She visits alliance headquarters Wednesday for an informal luncheon with NATO foreign ministers.

Shortly before flying from Paris to Brussels, Rice told an interviewer that Iran needs to realize it cannot use a European diplomatic initiative to indefinitely delay having the United Nations consider its suspected nuclear weapons program.

"The Iranians need to hear that if they are unwilling to take the deal ... the Europeans are giving ... then the Security Council (search) referral looms," she said in an interview with FOX News.

"I don't know that anyone has said that as clearly as they should to the Iranians," she said in a reiteration U.S. policy.

Alliance officials said her NATO visit would focus on preparations for a visit by President Bush on Feb. 22, when he will hold a summit with leaders of the other 25 allied nations.

NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer (search) wants the meetings to seal a new unity in the trans-Atlantic alliance following bitter divisions over the Iraq war.

The talks are also expected to review NATO's peacekeeping missions in Afghanistan and Kosovo and its efforts to train Iraq's military. De Hoop Scheffer said last month's elections in Iraq — which were widely applauded in Europe — should boost allied efforts to expand its training mission.

Alliance defense ministers are set to discuss expanding both the Afghan and Iraq missions at a long-scheduled meeting Wednesday and Thursday.

NATO has been struggling to persuade governments to commit extra troops to both its missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq, the problem has been compounded by the refusal of France, Germany and other nations that opposed the U.S.-led war to send instructors.

NATO currently has about 100 troops in Iraq on the training mission.

Rice's visit to NATO is part of an eight-day tour of Europe and the Middle East that included a speech on U.S. foreign policy in Paris.

"I do not think that NATO needs to become the policeman of the world," Rice said in Paris. "I think that would be asking too much of this alliance."

"It is a bulwark for democratic states, and it can therefore play an important role in the spread of democracy and liberty, but we have other means," Rice said at a news conference with French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier (search).

The trans-Atlantic alliance now includes countries far removed from its Cold War-era roots in Western Europe, and has numerous peacekeeping and military operations around the world.

"NATO has a very important role to play, but we should be very clear that there are many others who need to play these roles as well," Rice said in Paris.

For example, she noted that Brazil is leading the peacekeeping effort in Haiti and that the African Union is willing to help in Sudan.

Rice's first trip abroad as secretary of state concludes Thursday in Luxembourg. She has said that either she or her second-in-command will visit each of the NATO capitals early this year.

Quote:Isn't it ironic that the "democratic Western perspective" thinks that the regime of another country should be overthrown?

I have no doubt that Hitler and alikes had/have a similar pattern of thinking-"There is no doubt that the the current XXXXXian regime should be overthrown" lol

Well, here is a very good point! Since Bush "rigged" the 2004 Presidential Election, as he did in 2000, he is governing despite not being elected. This means that the majority of Americans didn't agree to have their current government. So, all of this means that America's current regime should be overthrown then, right?!

Bottom line, America is no longer a Democratic country...far less even, than it seems that Iran is. So, what exactly is it that the Bush Administration is creating in Afghanistan & Iraq? Is it Democracy??? How can people who don't respect the ideology of Democracy in THEIR OWN COUNTRY expect to make people from half way around the world accept it?!

Michael Moore created "Bollowing for Columbine" and then made "Farenheit 9/11", both with the message of not re-electing Republicans as President or Congressmans/womans. What did these mainstream media phenomenons accomplsih?...4 MORE YEARS! What did all of the criticism & evidence of lies against the Bush Administration achieve...NOTHING!!!

George W. Bush is back and his brother, Jeb, (from Florida) is next! The American people will continue to be lied to, they will continue to vote for Democrats (those who aren't kept off of the roles, anyway ), they will keep getting Republicans, they will keep getting censored documents, and they will keep getting killed! (Either on foreign soil by innocent Iraqi/Iranian civilians or on American soil by so-called "Terrorist attacks") Oh, and the poor will get poorer while the rich/Bush Family will get richer!

So, people of the Western World, doesn't it seem that our collective will should be focused not on liberating the "suppressed" people of Iran, but on freeing the brain-washed & helpless people of America?! Isn’t it our Duty & our Obligation to overthrow the American government?!

I'd like for everyone to take a minute and imagine what it would be like if all other civilized nations decided to invade America in order to overthrow the "evil" Bush Administration.........................................................................Now you probably have a better idea of how the people of Iraq felt...until bombs starting falling in their suburban neighbourhoods and soldiers started invading homes in search of "insurgents". How do you think they felt after that...how would you feel after having this happen to you & your family…overjoyed??? Hell no!!! You would probably be as mad at the invaders as the Iraqi people are against the American soldiers! (And those poor guys/gals are just following orders from their Commander in Chief. )

Is the will of the American people strong enough to free itself; or are other nations going to have to come in & clean up the Bushs' mess?!

I bet those "militant" guys in the backwoods of Michigan (who hate the government) don't sound so crazy right about now, do they? ____________
*The end to no beginning...

lol, looks like a stincky bad Hollywood scenario. I wonder how many will buy the crap this time. Oh, its so pathetic, my ribs hurt from laughing... ____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.

No,attacking Iraq is absolutely wrong,USA should stay at home and dont worried about plans how to rule all over world.USA thinks that they can do whatever what they want and other states are doing nothing about it,
America is going only for the money from the Oil fields and and for better position where to build another military bases so USA can control everyone.
Bush is only a doll in hands of Big weapon producing companys and Oil producers.Its all about politics and power.Why went Milosevich before the court for the military actions he did?
And attack on Iraq wasnt accepted with United Nations agreement and Bush attacked it afterall,so here was really a big break in the laws and authority to UN.
Bush should be sitting at this time in prison for his military actions which werent legal!!
But everyone keeps his mouth shut,and everything is okay,Mr.BUsh ,do whatever you want ,we will help you in everything.Someon really should stop the actions of USA government and dear Mr.president.
Im against any violence or killing innocent people in the world.Thats all